Bill C-43 (Historical)

Senate Appointment Consultations Act

An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate

This enactment provides for the consultation of electors in a province with respect to their preferences for the appointment of Senators to represent the province.
Part 1 provides for the administration of a consultation, which is exercised under the general direction and supervision of the Chief Electoral Officer.
Part 2 provides for the holding of a consultation, initiated by an order of the Governor in Council.
Part 3 provides for a process whereby prospective nominees may confirm their nominations with the Chief Electoral Officer.
Part 4 addresses voting by electors in a consultation.
Part 5 sets out the rules for the counting of votes pursuant to a preferential system, which takes into account the first and subsequent preferences of electors as indicated on their ballots.
Parts 6 and 7 deal with communications and third party advertising in relation to consultations.
Part 8 addresses financial administration by nominees.
Part 9 provides for the enforcement of the enactment, including the establishment of offences and punishments for contraventions of certain provisions.
Part 10 contains transitional provisions, consequential amendments to the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, coordinating amendments and commencement provisions.

Senate Appointment Consultations Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, why does the government not propose that? If that is where it wants to go, then why does it not propose it?

We would like, instead of this piecemeal approach, for the government to propose a real, long term solution. It should not do it in a piecemeal fashion by getting around the Constitution.

I might say this. The member knows that I am one member who does not change his story every day. I do not. Many in that party do.

The member mentioned that it is extremely difficult to change the Constitution, and that is true. I know it is even more difficult for the governing Conservative Party because it has never really managed to make some of the really difficult decisions. It was Prime Minister Trudeau who brought the Constitution home. It was the Liberals who made the hard decisions in terms of balancing the books, so that we could turn the country over in good financial shape to these folks. The bottom line question again is: why does the government not abide by constitutionality, have the proper discussions, and do--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

I am pleased to rise in the House in support of Bill C-43, a new bill to implement and improve the way in which worthy citizens can be considered for appointment to the other place in this Parliament. This has been a subject of great interest to the citizens of Simcoe North. Each chance I get I speak with them and from time to time they make it clear to me that the government needs to move in a direction away from the notions of governance around elitists and the privileged.

This bill is the second installation of our new government's sensible and incremental approach to making the Senate more accountable and democratic. It follows Bill S-4, a bill to limit Senate tenure which was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs back in February.

The Prime Minister best expressed this initial two part process to improve our institutions in a speech he delivered in Ottawa on February 6. He spoke of Canadians' commitment to democracy being the wellspring of our success as a country. He reminded us that the scandals of the previous government had shaken Canadians' faith in our democracy. He expressed the hope that public apathy and cynicism should diminish as the memory of those scandals do also.

The Federal Accountability Act has already gone a long way to restoring public trust in Canada's government, but we know there is much more to be done. For our government that means modernizing the upper house by setting fixed terms for senators and by finally giving Canadians a say in who represents them in the red chamber.

It turns out that Bill C-43 on Senate appointment consultations, while separate and distinct, actually complements the aims of Bill S-4 in bringing practical and important steps in achieving Senate reform.

This sentiment was best expressed by the several witnesses to the Senate Special Committee on Senate Reform. In its first report in October 2006 the committee echoed the need for additional legislation on advisory elections to smooth and improve the effect of fixed terms for senators. This is a natural fit for the direction we are heading in to make the Senate more reflective of the will of Canadians, by allowing citizens to express their opinion for Senate appointments and by limiting the term for which senators would serve.

One of the witnesses to the special committee, Mr. Gordon Gibson, summed it up well when he stated that the Senate “would be unacceptable without term limits”, but that it was equally clear to him that term limits are “unacceptable without an electoral system”.

In the last 139 years there have been no less than seven different resolutions and proposed reforms to improve the process of selecting senators, the first as early as in 1874, only seven years after Confederation. Of course with the exception of the 75 year age limit that came in in 1965, all of those measures failed. The essence of these improvements was to recognize that modern democratic institutions must be products of the people they represent. In fact the notion of having important offices in our democratic systems remain appointed as opposed to elected is completely at odds with the contemporary understanding of governance and the democratic values of Canadians.

Witnesses at the Senate Special Committee on Senate Reform argued broadly that to be effective within a democratic process the Senate requires the legitimacy that would be provided by elections. One of the other witnesses, John Whyte, senior fellow at the Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy, noted, “The case for Senate reform is overwhelming. Political power in legal democracies is accountable power”. He went on to argue that having unelected senators undermines the Senate in four ways. First, it does not reflect democratic choice. Second, it receives minimal public attention. Third, it exacerbates the confusion about who senators really represent. Fourth, it leaves senators unaccountable to Canadians for the work that they do.

We are proceeding prudently and sensibly without opening up an exhaustive and intractable constitutional negotiation. This is an achievable approach to meaningful Senate reform that can become the foundation for broader discussions on constitutional reforms to the Senate in the future.

On that note, I would like to remind hon. members that this bill does not require a constitutional amendment. It retains the powers of the Governor General to appoint, and the powers of the Prime Minister to recommend senators. However, the Prime Minister is allowed to consult in making Senate appointments, and who better to consult on this issue than Canadians themselves? The bill creates an objective and modern mechanism for the Prime Minister to do just that, to engage Canadians in consultation.

I would like to take a moment to point out some of the features that I think make this bill so relevant, flexible and practical. First, as I mentioned before, there is no constitutional amendment required.

Second, the voting procedure recommends that Canadians vote for senator nominees, likely during a federal general election, but the flexibility is there for a provincial election as well. This makes the process efficient and less costly.

Third, the voting for senator nominees is proposed to employ a single transferable ballot, also known as a preferential ballot, so the voters can express their first, second and so on preferences for Senate nominees.

This voting system has the added benefit of playing down the partisanship component of Senate nominees, leaving Canadians to consider not just the party affiliation of the nominee, but also his or her personal qualifications to fill that role.

We know the other place is supposed to be, as the preamble of the bill suggests, a chamber of independent, sober second thought, so Canadians expect the role of the parties to be less apparent in Senate deliberations. We also know that Canadians have expressed more than a little disdain at the Senate when senators take the partisanship arguments too far and ignore the will of the elected House of Commons. Regrettably we have seen too many examples of that, even recently, with Bill S-4, a two page bill which was adjourned and postponed day after day after day by the Liberal majority before it went to committee, I think some 260 days after it was first introduced in May last year.

This proposed consultation process speaks right to the heart of independent expression in the Senate. It will be a level playing field between independent and party sponsored senator nominees.

The fourth feature of the bill is the fact that this process adheres to the Canada Elections Act on the important tenets of financial administration, limits on advertising and the transparent reporting and auditing of financial records.

Of note is the upholding of an important standard that we adopted in the Federal Accountability Act to limit donations on election campaigns to $1,000 annually per individual and the banning of donations from corporations and unions. That said, and in respect to the expected costs of running a province-wide campaign, senator nominees will not be faced with an expense limit. This no expense limit feature, it should be pointed out, is still confined by the donation limit of $1,000 per individual.

This bill, an act to establish Senate consultations, call them advisory elections if you will, encompasses all of the right components to modernize our democratic systems in a practical and durable way.

The bill is separate but complementary to the aims of Bill S-4 to limit Senate tenure. It will strengthen our federation by making the upper house more accountable to the people and by enhancing the Senate's legitimacy and credibility as one of our cornerstone democratic institutions.

This bill delivers what is contemplated in its opening paragraph. It speaks to the importance of our representative institutions evolving in accordance with the principles of our modern democracy and the expectations of Canadians.

I want to close with just a few thoughtful words of one of our founding fathers, Sir John A. Macdonald, who, during the debates on Confederation, remarked on the Senate:

It must be an independent House, having a free action of its own...but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people.

Bill C-43 delivers on the wishes of the people in a genuine and sensible way. Canadians finally will have a say on who sits in the Senate. I encourage all hon. members to support the bill.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly we had a number of very good presentations. The hon. member has brought forward his support for the bill. We on this side of the House have some concerns. I would like to ask him a very basic question.

In Ontario very soon there will be a provincial election. We know that there may be vacant Senate seats in Ontario and according to the bill, anyone from North Bay to Ottawa would be able to put forward his or her name to become a senator. There could be 30 names on the list. The one who got the most support might have 7% of the votes that were cast, and maybe as in Alberta, only about 20% of the people would vote. How would this be a significant factor in terms of making a decision on behalf of the Prime Minister?

If a person from North Bay or any other place, let us say, Sioux Lookout, wanted to be a senator, how would that person contest this consultation to get a fair number of votes across the great province of Ontario? Would he or she be able to achieve his or her objective to become a senator?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very insightful and very specific question.

I did not get into the details in my remarks, but one of the features of this bill is the voting system. The voting system is done on a preferential ballot. If there were, as the member has cited, a large number of people running for just a few Senate seats in Ontario, the process envisages a preferential system where voters could indicate their first, second and third choices, and if none of the 30 nominees was successful on the first ballot, the proportion of ballots would then be considered in the second and third components, until eventually all those seats were filled. This is a modern proportional system. It is used in other democracies in other parts of the world, including Australia.

With regard to regional representation, nothing in this bill takes away the ability for the Prime Minister to ultimately make the decision about how those important regional representations should be taken into consideration.

I hope that answers the member's question.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the member.

He very appropriately did not criticize the members of the Senate. A few members have spoken of the good work they do and I wonder if he could outline some of the good work that the Senate does.

While he is thinking of his answer, I want to say to westerners that they must be shocked, after hearing all the Conservatives talk about having an elected Senate, to find out that according to the bill the Prime Minister gets to make the decision. People could vote for whomever they want but the ultimate decision would still be made by the Prime Minister.

Once again the Senate has two huge functions, to represent the regions and minorities. This bill hurts those two functions of the Senate. It makes that less possible. Westerners must be shocked that there would be a bill that would hurt the west. The member used legitimacy and credibility going to the Senate because of this, which it will, but the west is under-represented and they have not fixed that first. This will hurt the west dramatically.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the work of the Senate has been important to this Parliament throughout history. There has also been since the early days an expression that the Senate needs to be reflective of the considerations of the public in making sure that their work is properly represented. We are working in that vein to move that along.

In terms of the previous member's question in regard to how this representation works, albeit it is a progressive and new approach to voting, but in fact no senator could ever be elected with such a small minority. I would say again to the member for Yukon that when it comes to actually considering those important considerations in the Senate with regard to representation, these would still be a factor. In fact the way this is envisaged, individual Canadians--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my thanks to the member for Simcoe North for sharing his time.

I am pleased to rise today, on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells, to participate in the debate on Bill C-43, An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate.

The bill establishes a mechanism for consulting voters with respect to their preferences for the appointment of senators to represent their province or territory. The bill sets out the guidelines for electing Senate nominees. While it is not the full-fledged reform that many Canadians demand, Bill C-43 represents a practical and achievable step that provides significant and meaningful democratic reform. It may only be a small step, but it represents real change.

For too long, Canadians have been forced to settle for the status quo. Senators appointed largely on partisan grounds lack legitimacy and fail to act as regional spokespersons. It should therefore come as no surprise that Canadians want changes to the Senate. In fact, in poll after poll Canadians across the country have confirmed their support for Senate reform, including the election of senators.

In spring 2005, the Alberta Senate Reform Task Force found near unanimous support for the election of all future members of the Senate. A 2004 CTV poll asked Canadians “Do you want to elect your future Senators, yes or no?” Over 80% said yes. After the last federal election, an Environics poll done by the CBC found 71% of Canadians wanted to elect senators. Nearly one year ago, in June 2006, Ipsos Reid conducted a poll on Senate reform. Among reform alternatives given a plurality of Canadians, 44%, backed an elected Senate. Among British Columbians polled, more than 50% backed an elected Senate over other alternatives.

Despite lengthy debates and various attempts at reform, the Senate has remained essentially unchanged since its first sitting in November 1867.

In the late 1970s there were a number of proposals to turn the Senate into a house of the provinces. Drawing on the model of the German second chamber, it was argued that senators should be appointed by provincial governments.

In its 1984 report the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform concluded that direct election would best achieve its primary objective of strengthening the Senate's capacity to fill its role of regional representation.

Prime Minister Mulroney tried to introduce changes to the Senate through the 1987 Meech Lake constitutional accord, which would have required Ottawa to fill Senate vacancies from a list submitted by the affected provinces, and through the 1992 Charlottetown accord, which proposed to give all provinces equal seats in the upper chamber and introduce elected senators, either by the province's electorate or legislative assembly. Both attempts to amend the Constitution failed, and since then Senate reform has largely been ignored.

The Prime Minister has observed that the all or nothing approach of previous governments to Senate reform has resulted in nothing. This is precisely the reason that Canada's new government has taken a fundamentally different route. We are pursuing a staged approach that will provide practical, sensible reforms which will build a foundation for more fundamental future reform.

As a first step, the government introduced legislation to limit the tenure of Senate appointments to eight years, rather than the current provisions whereby appointees can retain office until age 75. Changing the tenure of senators to eight years would enhance the legitimacy of the Senate and accordingly, enhance its role in providing sober second thought. Eight year terms would also provide a renewal of ideas and perspectives on a more regular basis.

Taken together with Bill C-43, the government is proposing real reform to the Senate. These changes may not meet all expectations, but they are achievable. If implemented, the bill will provide concrete results.

We cannot adopt sweeping Senate reform without constitutional amendments. More comprehensive change that will make the Senate an effective, independent and democratically elected body that equally represents all regions will require the consent of at least seven provinces representing 50% of the population. That is because comprehensive changes would alter essential characteristics of the Senate. This will obviously take more time.

Critics of this proposed legislation, notably Liberal senators, contend it is unconstitutional. However, the experts have spoken. Pre-eminent constitutional scholars agree with the government. Provided changes do not legally affect the role of the Governor General in making appointments, or the role of the prime minister in recommending them. There is nothing unconstitutional about this endeavour.

Bill C-43 does not affect either of these roles. It does not create a process for the direct election of senators. It does not change the constitutional qualifications of senators. In short, it does not affect any of the matters identified in subsection 42(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 as requiring the so-called 7/50 amending procedure.

The prime minister is allowed to consult anyone in making Senate appointments. Bill C-43 simply provides a mechanism for him to hold a consultation with the citizens of Canada.

I applaud the government for taking this very important step to reform the way senators are chosen. It is an improvement that has the wholehearted support of my constituents. For far too long, Liberal politicians have told Canadians there was nothing that could be done to cure the democratic deficit in the Senate short of a constitutional amendment.

Canadians were not buying that excuse and neither are we. The government has taken a significant first step toward ensuring that this important democratic institution evolves in step with the expectations of Canadians.

The bill represents a significant improvement to the status quo and will provide a solid foundation for further reforms. I hope all members will support the initiative.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question. I made remarks earlier that this is anything but democratic and anything but constitutional. The member for Fleetwood—Port Kells said that the government would be moving forward eventually with the effect of having an independent and democratically elected Senate.

Could the member tell us when her boss or when the Government of Canada is going to bring that total package forward? That is what we really need to see. We need to see a total package not a half-baked idea, and this legislation is clearly a half-baked idea that is not well thought out.

We have not debating the whole constitutionality around it. Could the member give us a timeframe of when the total package will be coming forward, or indeed is there one?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with this proposed legislation, our government is attempting to make the Senate more accountable and more democratic.

We are doing consultations with Canadians across the country. For the first time ever, Canadians will have a say in the selection of senators. The senate appointment consultations would give Canadians a voice in choosing who represents them in the Senate of Canada.

For years, Liberal politicians visiting my province only paid lip service to Senate reform. They acknowledged the popular support for change and voiced their agreement, but did absolutely nothing. The Liberal excuse has been that reform requires constitutional change so reform must be put off until Canadians are ready to open up the Constitution again. Liberals knew very well that Canadians had no appetite for constitutional reform, that people did not want a repeat of Meech Lake. This excuse served the Liberals very well.

Liberal prime ministers have had no interest in changing the Senate. It has worked very well for them also. They are happy with a system that has allowed them to appoint their cronies and hacks to the upper chamber. They asked why mess with a system that rewarded so many card holding Liberals?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have entered a time warp. I can hear the same comments coming from the opposition that I am sure Prime Minister Robert Borden heard when he brought in voting rights for women. I am not sure the opposition actually said that was a half-baked idea. There was significant opposition, though.

I was hearing the same sort of comments when I closed my eyes and thought about John Diefenbaker bringing voting rights for the aboriginal community.

I appreciate the member's comments. Is this is a step in the right direction? Anything that moves the country toward greater democracy has to be something better than what the members opposite are calling half-baked, and how shameful.

The member mentioned a number of how many people in the last election supported Senate reform. I think she said it was 80% or somewhere in there. Could the member please refresh my memory on how many Canadians support this move?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I will tell the member is we need an elected Senate. We need a democratic process in place. I am very proud of my government's achievements. It is the Conservative Party that gave women the right to vote. It is the Conservative party that gave aboriginals the right to vote.

I am sure it will be the Conservative Party that will put an elected Senate in place. An elected Senate is past due. Canadians want accountability and Senate reform is part of it.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to engage in this debate.

Members of the opposition have referred to former Prime Minister Diefenbaker. I cannot help but shake my head and think of former Prime Minister Diefenbaker, who believed in things like the Bill of Rights. He was a Progressive Conservative. To quote Danny Williams, he was not a “regressive Conservative” like the Reform-Alliance Conservatives are. I think that is important to point out to the House. I dare say that they should not be invoking the name of John Diefenbaker, who had an appreciation for rights.

A debate about the Senate was greatly advanced and put forward by the Reform Party. I remember how Preston Manning and the Reform Party were advocating for it, but the reality is that when they were talking about Senate elections, they talked about the three Es: elected, effective and equal.

But before I even get there, let me say that if we want to change the Constitution of Canada, this bill is trying to do it through the back door. The Senate is part of our Constitution. It is the chamber of sober second thought.

I must say that I have had occasion to plead my case with the Senate to defeat a government bill. I was a member of the government in the House of Commons and I went there with a colleague of mine from the Liberal Party as well as a colleague of mine from the Reform Party. Even though there was a majority of Liberal senators, they saw the wisdom of our appeal and held up a bad piece of legislation. I will be forever thankful for that. It certainly brought home to me the importance of having a Senate that is depoliticized as much as possible and indeed the importance of having a chamber of sober second thought.

We talk about going through the back door or doing it properly according to the Constitution. To amend the Constitution, which the bill essentially would require if it were to be meaningful, we need to have, according to section 38 of the Constitution, a resolution of the Senate and of the House of Commons and two-thirds of the provinces, seven having at least 50% of the population.

We know that Quebec and Ontario are opposed. Combined, they make up much more than 50% of the population. Further, I point out on the question of being equal that Alberta has 10.3% of the population of Canada, yet only 5.7% of the seats. British Columbia has 13.2% of the population of Canada but only 5.7% of the seats. In the case of the province of Ontario, it has 22.9% of the senators and over one-third of the population. How does it make sense to do an unconstitutional runaround on electing senators when a vote in British Columbia or Ontario or Alberta would be a very small fraction of the vote in other provinces?

I thought we generally agreed that there is agreement to having representation by population. This certainly does not address that. It is done very much in a piecemeal fashion.

I listened to the debate. I noted that the member for Cambridge said this was a great plan. Back during the time of the Meech Lake accord, the then premier of Ontario, Liberal David Peterson, made some comments about giving up some Senate seats from the province of Ontario. That suggestion did not go over well during the election campaign that followed shortly. The reason was that the people in Ontario did not want to see under-representation in the Senate made worse. The people of Ontario believe, as I dare say the people of Cambridge do, in representation by population.

This does not address that issue. As I said, it is piecemeal and it is through the back door. The fact of the matter is that because we cannot make these elections binding we depend on the Prime Minister to keep his word. I am sure all members of the House would agree, and all people involved in income trusts would agree, that this Prime Minister does not necessarily keep his word. He might keep it some of the time, but he surely does not keep it all of the time.

I think this whole issue of Senate reform, the issue that is masqueraded as Senate reform, is really dishonest, because it does not address the question as it goes to the very foundation of this country and our institutions. There is a way of properly doing constitutional reform. That is why we repatriated our Constitution. It was so we could do that here and not have to go to Westminster cap in hand. That was done on April 17, 1982.

That constitutional reform was done under the leadership of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Let me say that there was a great deal of consultation around the country. It was comprehensive. It got tested by the courts. It had the provinces onside. This bill does none of that.

I mentioned that the Prime Minister does not always keep his word. We all remember the election. As soon as the election was held, his word was broken when he appointed to the Senate the Minister of Public Works, who was not a member of the House of Commons and who was not elected to anything. Here we have one of our most sensitive portfolios in the Senate, and we in the House of Commons cannot ask questions of that minister. This is so very much a typically Conservative smokescreen and piecemeal optics.

May I say that when the member for Calgary East talked about the Liberals appointing their buddies to the Senate, Brian Mulroney, in his nine short years, appointed 57 senators. I really hope that the member for Calgary East gets the message.

I think I am hitting a nerve on the other side. Notwithstanding that the Reformers came up here and said they were going to engage in civil debate, those folks over there have forgotten all that, just as they have forgotten coming to the Parliament of Canada to represent their constituents.

I remember a time when I looked across the aisle and listened to the Reform Party members and the leader did not even sit in the first row. He sat in the third row. Eventually he moved up to the first row. I remember how for every vote before this chamber the whip for the Reform Party said, “Reform Party members are going to be voting this way”, except those members who had been instructed by their constituents to do the other.

We have come 180 degrees to the party that is now on that side. I note the member for Wild Rose. He remembers those days as well. I appreciated those days because it helped bring some reform into this chamber. The only problem was that as soon as those members got into government the heavy hand of dictatorial power from the Prime Minister came down, the likes of which Parliament has not seen in 50 years. It is just unbelievable. We have situations--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!